Every species – whether brought about by evolution or divine creation – has a biological design that strives for the survival of that species. Part of that biological design is reproduction, which is necessary for the survival of our species too, assuming humans will never be immortal. What if someone never reproduces? Biologically, such people seem at first glance to not be contributing to the survival of our species. Are they deviating from our design?
Why would someone not reproduce? There are several different reasons. From a strictly biological point of view, maybe the person is unable to reproduce due to an accident or some medical condition. It’s not hard to picture products being made in a factory not all being made exactly the same. Some random deviation in the process might make some products slightly different. Products that are too different from the intended design might be considered defective. With humans and other mammals, there is such a thing as birth defects. Also, accidents happen.
But some people are biologically capable of reproducing and simply don’t. Why not? Maybe conditions are unfavorable to starting a family, due to (e.g.) imprisonment, war, poverty, or simply not finding the right person or the right circumstances. Or maybe they are too focused on their career or are even homosexual. Is there something wrong with such people for not reproducing? Why doesn’t the human species biologically try harder to prevent these situations or at least overcome them? Biology can’t predict the future but can only try to adjust for common situations. Avoiding having children in a bad situation is not necessarily a bad thing. Someone exposed to extreme negative situations while growing up, may have trouble fitting into a more regular society. What about the people who simply would rather do something else? Is such a strong career focus considered a defect? Is homosexuality a defect?
A typical dandelion releases many seeds, but maybe not all of them germinate and produce new plants. A seed may land where it can’t grow or somehow get destroyed. Maybe some seeds are even defective. And yet the common dandelion species (those species that we in the States are most familiar with) continue to survive. Dandelions are so successful here, that they don’t have to be anywhere near perfect. Is our biological design being sloppy with those who don’t reproduce, allowing such variation simply because it can get away with it? Or are those who don’t reproduce allowed to exist, simply because their removal would be too costly in terms of altering our species?
These questions about people who don’t reproduce, assume that reproduction is necessary for individuals to contribute to our society, but non-reproducing people can and often do make a positive difference. Of all the people employed in an industry directly related to our survival, such as agriculture or safety, there are bound to be some who have never had children, in spite of having plenty of time to do so. Without the distraction of children, maybe some of them are better at their jobs and therefore are able to contribute more in that way.
Granted, an individual can contribute to the survival of our species without reproducing, why should homosexuality specifically even exist? Is the quality a defect? If a homosexual contributes to society (or at least is capable), then that individual is not a biological failure per se. So there’s no reason to automatically screen them out. But even if a homosexual individual doesn’t directly contribute to society, homosexuality itself does not seem to be detrimental. Also, with our population not being scarce, reproduction is not currently a strict requirement. In fact, with so many people already living on Earth, why are so many of us still allowed by our design to reproduce? Why aren’t more of us not reproducing? In that sense, homosexuality is actually beneficial, if it leads to not reproducing.
Are there any famous examples of homosexuals contributing to society? As it turns out, a homosexual man named Alan Turing contributed in many ways.[1] His work on cryptography helped the Allies decrypt many German messages during World War II and win the war, saving millions of lives. He designed a stored-program computer, maybe a simplified version of what we use today. He also devised a theoretical computing model said to be the basis of modern computers.
While homosexuality is not harmful and can actually be beneficial to our species, is it actually intended by our design? It’s not unreasonable, since other social species like some honey bees have members who are specifically not supposed to reproduce. But I suspect homosexuals are not necessarily intended not to reproduce. I’m not sure we can really answer this question.
In light of all this, I don’t see any justification for discriminating against homosexuals or bisexuals or people who simply aren’t reproducing. As a straight guy with an appreciation for computers, freedom, and saving lives, I for one am glad for Alan Turing’s existence. I’m also grateful for anyone else who contributes to society, regardless of ability to reproduce or gender identity. Unfortunately, there are people who aren’t so accepting and actually take actions specifically against homosexuals or others who are different. That’s clearly detrimental. Ironically, if these people can’t accept that other people are different and can’t change, then they themselves are defective.
References
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing
(c) Copyright 2021 by Mike Ferrell
Odd STEM 